AMERICAN AMBASSADOR GANG RAPED THEN MURDERED BY MUSLIMS

I had a noga ranch .... Originally Posted by ekim008

They make great sofas. It's a shame to kill; they're so cute.

Our interest in the middle-east is due to the energy resources in that region. Period. Pardon the pun, but everything flows from that. There may be other variables in the calculation, but in the absence of the oil, those variables would be rendered meaningless. Originally Posted by timpage

Except in Bosnia and Afghanistan, right? Cause there's no oil there. Which was the point I was making in response to the original assertion that we ONLY went to to war in 6 Muslim countries to get oil. I assume 3 others were Iraq, Libya, and Kuwait. I don't know who the 6th was cause he never said.

I wasn't referring just to Iraq. That pretty much was about oil both times.

snap

You do realize that Clinton did not want to go there ...
Originally Posted by WTF

Clinton didn't "have" to go there .... #1 Enron was "going there" .. that's why the Taliban met with Enron at Sugarland (around 1998) to settle a deal on a pipeline to carry the gas to the electrical generating plant that Enron was putting together in India (the one that exploded) ... it was about the time that the deal was being finished that Clinton ordered some TommieHawk strikes on the goat herders .... the Enron folks were pissed ... in fact the Clinton administration threatened trading sanctions on India if they didn't allow the completion of the electrical plant.

Afghanistan has "always" been a trading route ... it's like owning "the tollroad."

More recently there have been rumors of rich mineral deposits, including lithium, as well. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/wo...4minerals.html

As usual, you're on Pluto. We haven't gone to war "in defense of muslims". Our foreign policy and our past, current and future entanglement with the Middle East is the result of one thing: oil. There are plenty of Muslim countries around the world where we could give a shit less what happens....those would be the ones without any fossil fuel in the ground. We only get concerned about occurrences in Muslim countries when it threatens the oil spigot. Originally Posted by timpage

Wow. I hate to ruin your day, Timmy, but I totally agree with you on that one. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Gentlemen (and I employ the term 'gentlemen' loosely here - LOL), please explain how Jefferson used oil as an excuse to send Marines into Tripoli during his administration. If you cannot, could it be there are other issues at play -- and have been at play for centuries -- that you are ignoring?

yeah ... ragheads are stupid enough to kill each other and have been for freaking ever, and Bush was stupid enough to think giving mohammed a purple thumb would change that

... Bush was stupid enough to think giving mohammed a purple thumb would change that Originally Posted by CJ7

It's taken "us" a couple of hundred years with the "purple thumb" thingy ..

.... and "we're" still working on it.

There is such a thing as called follow through in the form of continued support. Unfortunately for those who actually were proud to have a purple thumb, a guy took over where Bush left off ... with his thumb up his ass .... so it's not "purple" ...

... and his thumb stinks. I'm looking forward to the stench being gone.

yeah ... ragheads are stupid enough to kill each other and have been for freaking ever, Originally Posted by CJ7

CBJ7, you are a fucking moron.

CBJ7, you are a fucking moron. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What was your first clue?

What was your first clue? Originally Posted by joe bloe

The last one was Bush not trying to stop OBL from wrecking our economy.

But I will say it was extremely creative the way he tied all of that together and make sure that his man in the White House doesn't have to be responsible for the sorry ass economy we have right now ....

.. but since his man in the White House killed OBL the economy is turning around.

Right?

Yeah, no one wanted to go to war and yet somehow the Air Force magically appeared in the skies.

The point is that: 1) we actually went to war and 2) it wasn't for oil. And low casualties after the fact doesn't change that.

. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I never said that. I said it was not much of a war. I said we do not fight real wars unless resources are involved. I mistaken thought we had no causalities, I was wrong. My apologies. I stick by my ascertain that it was not much of a war (for the USofA). ***


http://www.brookings.edu/research/ar...alkans-daalder

For over four years following the breakup of Yugoslavia and the onset of war, first in Croatia and then in Bosnia, the United States refused to take the lead in trying to end the violence and conflict. While many have written eloquently and passionately to explain Washington's—and the West's—failure to stop the ethnic cleansing, the concentration camps, and the massacres of hundreds of thousands of civilians, few have examined why, in the summer of 1995, the United States finally did take on a leadership role to end the war in Bosnia.

My point was that '"war for oil" is a left-wing trope - except when their guy is in office. We may consider energy in our calculations, but it is one of many factors. Originally Posted by ExNYer

We may consider...Do you not understand wtf control of the flow of resources mean?

Rivalry for pipeline routes and energy resources reflects competition for power and control in the region. Pipelines are important today in the same way that railway building was important in the 19th century. They connect trading partners and influence the regional balance of power. Afghanistan is a strategic piece of real estate in the geopolitical struggle for power and dominance in the region.

7 in Bosnia Originally Posted by Dawgs

1 in Yugoslavia Originally Posted by Dawgs

I was wrong, sorry, I should have done better research. I had read Retired General Wesley Clark book many moons ago. http://www.amazon.com/Waging-Modern-War-Bosnia-Kosovo/dp/1586481398

http://www.pixelpress.org/bosnia/context/0703yugo-us-troops.html Soldiers did die in Bosnia. Source: The New York Times Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Wow JD, do you even read your own links?

http://www.pixelpress.org/bosnia/context/0703yugo-us-troops.html



***IVINICE, Bosnia-Herzegovina -- A fear of American casualties has driven Washington's policy about military involvement in Bosnia, but Army statistics show that the troops stationed here are safer, healthier, and less likely to be killed than soldiers in the Army as a whole.
Among the 18,500 soldiers assigned to the Army task force in Bosnia, there have been only three deaths through late June, one-third the rate last year among soldiers throughout the Army. In Bosnia, one soldier was killed by a mine, one by a kitchen fire, and one when his truck ran off a narrow bridge.
Most deaths in the Army as a whole were caused by accidents, but causes of death also include disease, homicide, and suicide.
The number of American soldiers being hospitalized in Bosnia is about three-quarters of the rate for the Army, according to Army statistics. The bulk of American military personnel here are Army troops, with only a sprinkling of members of other branches of the service.
A captain here provided an explanation for the phenomenon. "They've got most of us basically locked down in camp 24 hours a day. If you don't have a life, you can't get hurt." It may overstate things to say the American troops here -- essentially confined to their bases and restricted from drinking alcohol -- don't have a life. As of late June, there have been 62 pregnancies reported among the 2,000 or so women serving in Bosnia. That is something else doctors say they did not expect, although the pregnancy rate does not exceed the average for women in the Army overall.

Except in Bosnia and Afghanistan, right? Cause there's no oil there. Which was the point I was making in response to the original assertion that we ONLY went to to war in 6 Muslim countries to get oil. I assume 3 others were Iraq, Libya, and Kuwait. I don't know who the 6th was cause he never said.

I wasn't referring just to Iraq. That pretty much was about oil both times. Originally Posted by ExNYer

And you pretty much having reading comprehension problems.


1) Bosnia...not much of a war. It took us four years to do something.

2) Iraq, Saddam quit taking dollars for oil. That was a fatal mistake on his part. But no oil, no USA.

3) Libya, Europe needed our air power. We were assured they would do the heavy lifting and we would not get bogged down over there. But no oil , no USA

4) Kuwait, Saddam mistakenly thought he had our ok to go there and reclaim territority that had been in dispute. No oil, no USA .

5) Afghanistan, Primary to go after al-Qaeda I have already posted a huge secondary reason. The funny thing is we pivioted to Iraq. Why? OIL.

6) Read "Black Hawk Down" is you do not know the other country , Mister History Buff

Nothing I said has been proven wrong by you. All you have proven is an inabality to comprehend wtf I wrote. To recap:

Could you be more specific?

Could you break down the cost in lives and money on each front?

My guess Iraq and Afgan are head and shoulders abouve the other four.

I would also suggest that it is oil business we are after, not Muslim protection. We go to war for the benifit of a small segment of our society. Defense Contractors and Oli Interests. Originally Posted by WTF

But oil concerns and Defense concerns get gullible people like Whirly, jb, LK to believe it is a war of cultures.

All wars worth fighting are for resources. No resources and you won't have much of a war. That is why Bosnia was such a small affair.

But you can not tell our patriotic Tea Nuts anything like facts. They will call you cowardly. Originally Posted by WTF

You grant credence to the story?

Give us a break!

That's almost like an admission of a lie.

Either way, this heinous crime and whatever it's full dimensions turn out to be will be dealt with in full measure most severely.

. . . There is soon going to be raining hell on those responsible.

Tayyar.org, the Turkish news site is reputable. They are the source for the rape story. I give credence to their reporting....... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The details of Ambassador Steven's death are beginning to emerge. Apparently he was gang raped before the Muslims murdered him. We are dealing with subhumans. These people need to eradicated like smallpox. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Actually this all turned out to be a lie. He died of smoke inhalation and Libyan citizens tried to save him by rushing him to a hospital.

Seconding what Big Louie says - there is video of the Libyans carrying Stevens out of the building and taking him to the hospital, where he died of asphyxiation. Well-documented by witness also. The story that he was raped before and/after death is just more internet bullshit propogated by mostly anti-homosexual and anti-muslim extremists. And why does this matter? Because it is very important to know the details in order to calibrate our response and to seek out the guilty parties, rather than sowing the random death and destruction that some people advocate.